Centre Stage 2 The organisation and functions of the centre of government in OECD countries.
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Centre Stage 2
The organisation and functions of the centre of
government in OECD countries.
Centre Stage, OECD Centres of Government - © OECD 2018 1The ‘Centre of Government’(CoG) is the body that provides direct support and advice to the Head of Government and the
Council of Ministers. The CoG meetings began in the 1980s, and were consolidated into an annual event in the 1990s. CoG
constitutes a forum for informal discussion and remain one of the OECD’s highest-level policy networks.
The meetings serve three main purposes:
• To review issues of how to make the centre of national government work more effectively;
• To achieve a more in-depth understanding of decision and policymaking systems in the host country.
• To work on broad governance issues fundamental to achieving economic and social public policy objectives.
The meetings are hosted each year by one of the members of the network.
Centre Stage, OECD Centres of Government - © OECD 2018 / Photo credit: © Shutterstock
1SCOPE OF THE SURVEY AND THIS REPORT
Scope of the survey and this report
The centre of government is the body or group of bodies that provide direct support and advice to heads of
government and the council of ministers, or cabinet. From their traditional role of serving the executive from an
administrative perspective, centres of government are now playing a more active role in policy development.
The centre in many countries now provides services that range from strategic planning to real-time policy
advice and intelligence, and from leading major cross departmental policy initiatives to monitoring progress
and outcomes. OECD work on centres of government explores how governments can adapt the institutions at
the centre in order to play this expanded and more outward–looking role.
A survey on the organisation and functions of the centre of government was circulated to the OECD Network of
Senior Officials from Centres of Government (CoG) in July 2017. This draft report analyses the responses provided
by 37 countries. Where appropriate, it compares the results with the 2013 benchmark Centre Stage survey and
report, which covered 33 countries. Three countries who responded to the earlier survey did not respond to the
2017 survey, while a new group responded to the 2017 survey. This means that the analysis is based on a slightly
different group than last time and comparisons should be seen in that context.
Acknowledgements
This report was prepared by the OECD Secretariat and Ms. Sally Washington, consultant.
Centre Stage, OECD Centres of Government - © OECD 2018 34
CONTENTS
Executive Summary 7
Key findings 7
What is the centre of government? 11
What the centre of government does – key roles and responsibilities 11
Leadership and staffing at the centre of government 12
Size and structure – the only constant is change 14
Ensuring high-quality decision making 16
Supporting cabinet and cabinet procedures 16
Review and quality control of items for cabinet 17
Going upstream – improving the quality of policy advice 19
Bringing senior officials together for policy co-ordination 19
Influencing and incentivising policy co-ordination 20
Mandates and targets 20
Policy co-ordination across branches and levels of government 21
Relations with parliament/legislatures 21
Relations with sub-national governments 21
Relations with international governments and policy fora 22
Whole-of-government vision, strategy and priority-setting 22
Strategic vision – setting the agenda 22
Strategic planning and setting priorities 23
Risk management and foresight capabilities 25
Towards ‘anticipatory governance’ 26
Driving cross-cutting and priority policies 27
Digital transformation strategies 29
Open government – principles, consultation and participation 31
Public administration reform – role of the centre 32
Improving regulatory quality 33
Human resource initiatives – leadership, talent management and skills development 36
Implementation and monitoring performance 36
Assuring fiscal alignment 37
Monitoring implementation 37
Implementation and delivery units 38
Measuring collective performance 38
External and internal communications 39
Managing government transitions 41
Conclusions and areas for reform 43
References 44
Centre Stage, OECD Centres of Government - © OECD 2018 56
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report focuses on the centre of government, the support structure serving the highest level of the execu-
tive branch of government (presidents, prime ministers and their equivalents). The report is the second com-
prehensive attempt to describe the role and responsibilities of offices at the centre of government. It draws
on a 2017 survey of senior officials working at the centre of government and how they describe their crucial
role in public governance. Where appropriate, it compares 2017 results to those of the 2013 benchmark survey
(OECD, 2015).
Despite differences among countries in terms of constitutional forms and administrative traditions – even the
extent to which the centre is led and staffed by political appointees rather than career civil servants – there are
strong similarities in the functions the centre performs. Supporting the head of government and ministers to
make good decisions by ensuring they receive evidence-informed, co-ordinated and coherent advice is com-
mon to all, as is co-ordinating the various actors in the policy process, and ensuring the quality and capability
of the policy system. The centre also typically acts as the guardian of overall strategic direction of government,
translating political intent to line departments and ensuring that agreed policies and programmes are imple-
mented. This requires a high level of expertise in facilitation, networking and influence across government.
As policy challenges become more cross-cutting, the centre is increasingly called on to lead policy processes.
As such, the centre continues to transition towards a more pro-active, outward-facing and leadership role in
the public administration and beyond.
Key findings from the survey are described below, followed by some ‘areas for attention’. These are areas where
weaknesses have been identified or where some international exchange of experiences could help build capa-
bility and performance across centres of government in OECD and partner governments.
KEY FINDINGS
Despite different systems, the centre has similar functions everywhere…
Despite different constitutional and administrative systems, diverse organisational structures, and differences
in size, most countries have similar expectations of offices at the centre of government. The top four priority
tasks of the centre of government are:
•• Supporting decision making by the head of government and the cabinet, which involves admin-
istrative tasks related to cabinet meetings, as well as the provision of policy advice (and if not
political advice then policy advice that is politically savvy)
•• Policy co-ordination across government, which increasingly involves leading cross-cutting policy
priorities or initiatives
•• Strategic planning for the whole of government
•• Communicating government messages to the public and across the administration.
The survey results show a slight change in priorities from the last survey, where communications did not fea-
ture in the top 4 tasks but monitoring the implementation of government policy did. Strategic planning also
seems relatively more important in the 2017 results.
While the centre works closely with line ministries, its co-ordination and coherence functions are most often
shared with ministries of finance; they also have a whole-of-government focus and are often referred to as a
‘central agency’ in most countries.
Centre Stage, OECD Centres of Government - © OECD 2018 7The centre is constantly changing but there is some continuity…
Staff numbers and the budgets of centre of government offices grew in two-thirds (67%) of countries since
the 2013 survey.
Many centres took on new functions, and the number and types of units at the centre changed significantly.
Only one-third said the configuration of the centre remained stable in terms of numbers of units (31%) and
types of units (33%).
There is an almost even split between countries as to whether the head of the centre of government is a politi-
cal appointee (51%) or a career civil servant (49%). Accordingly, in just over half of countries the head of the
centre of government steps down when there is a change of government. However, there is more stability in
senior management overall; in three-quarters of countries less than a quarter of senior management at the
centre changes following a change of government.
The vast majority of centre of government staff (92%) are career civil servants. In around two-thirds of coun-
tries some of these staff are seconded from other ministries; this helps to maintain a rolling stock of subject
matter expertise, to strengthen relationships with line ministries, and enhance the co-ordination capacity of
the centre.
The centre has significant influence over decision-making processes but might need new collaborative
leadership strategies to maintain that influence…
The centre provides the key support to cabinet and cabinet committees, including to co-ordinate and resolve
differences prior to cabinet meetings. More than three-quarters (78%) reported organising meetings of minis-
ters, confirming close proximity to and involvement with the wider executive.
More than two-thirds (68%) of centres have a check and reject role, to test that items submitted to cabinet
conform to legal, regulatory, and financial criteria, and that adequate consultation has occurred, and if not,
the authority to return proposals to the generating ministry or department. However, on all criteria apart
from legal conformity, the centre’s authority to reject items appears to have dropped since 2013.
Widespread requirements to provide regulatory impact statements with cabinet proposals might suggest the
centre’s role is more to check that procedures have been followed rather than to test the quality of regulatory
analysis itself. Some centres have their sights set further upstream, on improving the quality of policy advice
that underpins proposals to ministers.
Only around a quarter (27%) of centres felt they had ‘high’ influence over other ministries (down from over a
third, 34%, in 2013). Around three-quarters (73%) consider they only have ‘moderate’ influence. The ‘proxim-
ity to power’ authority of the centre, therefore, is important, but may not be sufficient to exert influence over
other parts of the administration.
More collaborative strategies for achieving policy goals suggest a role for the centre that is less about being
a watchdog or internal auditor and more about providing active facilitation, support and implementation
advice to ministries or groups of ministries. This is especially the case for meeting cross-cutting policy goals.
The centre is taking on more direct leadership of substantive policy and reform areas…
Around half of respondents (51%) said the number of cross-ministerial initiatives had increased in their juris-
diction since the 2013 survey. The centre is taking the lead in a significant number and range of substantive
policy initiatives.
The centre is also involved in leading public administration reform programmes, either in their entirety or cer-
tain aspects; in particular digital transformation, improving regulatory and policy quality and capability, and
certain aspects of human resources strategies (leadership, policy skills). They also lead or co-ordinate some
high-profile, thematic topics, including digital economy and gender equality.
8Weaknesses remain in whole-of-government strategy, strategic planning, and in embedding futures
thinking and risk management into planning and policy processes…
While more than three-quarters of centres (78%) reported having a document outlining a strategic vision for
their country, over a third (35%) of those documents cover a short-term horizon of five years or less (consist-
ent with an election cycle). However, this is an improvement on 2013 results, where almost two-thirds (63%)
fell into this short-term category. More countries have documents covering an 11-20 year time frame (27%
compared with 17% in 2013).
The 2013 survey noted that strategic planning at the centre was not well anchored in institutional terms and
struggles to influence the direction of policy in practice. The 2017 results largely confirm this analysis although
shows some improvements.
Just over half (54%) of respondents claimed they were involved in identifying and defining government priori-
ties. However, digging into the centre’s role in priority setting and strategic alignment reveals more of a co-
ordination and oversight role than one of helping to set a strategic policy agenda.
The most common risk management functions for the centre remain at the reactive end of the scale, focused
on the management and co-ordination of government operations in the event of a crisis. Less than one-third
have a role in scenario planning based on identifying and analysing potential future risks.
Governments in general do not appear to have developed the institutions, processes and practices to focus
on the long term. Few centres have developed an effective role in public good stewardship. This will inevitably
weaken their ability to identify challenges and risks, or to mitigate and manage those risks, let alone to con-
tribute to strong and resilient future economies and societies.
The centre monitors implementation and performance but more activity than impact…
The vast majority of countries (84%, albeit slightly less than the 91% reported in 2013) have some form of
policy implementation monitoring regime. However, in around half of countries this is limited to requiring line
ministries to report against implementation workplans.
Monitoring seems largely focused on ‘doing things right’ (following procedures) rather than ‘doing the right
things’. There was scant mention of any evaluation of the impact of policies on social and economic outcomes.
Centres are involved in digital transformation but there are unexploited opportunities to improve pro-
cesses…
More than three-quarters (76%) of centres are involved in digital transformation strategies or initiatives. Early
digital transformation efforts have focused on digital as a way of joining up government, driving efficiencies
and improving interactions between government and business and citizens. There is significant scope to build
on that infrastructure to think beyond digital transformation for enhancing service delivery to digital transfor-
mation to enhance upstream policy processes (data analytics, participatory processes).
Centre Stage, OECD Centres of Government - © OECD 2018 9Communications is becoming more of a priority for centres of government and open government prin-
ciples are well established. But involving the public in policy is still patchy…
Communicating messages to the public and across the administration is now one of the top 4 functions for the
centre of government. More than three-quarters (78%) of survey respondents said they had some responsibil-
ity for strategic whole-of-government communications.
Social media has also become more important. Some 70% of centres have a social media strategy, significantly
up from 42% in 2013. Engagement with social media appears to be viewed as a positive opportunity rather
than a risk to be managed. It offers channels to get messages out to citizens directly (by-passing other media
and mitigating the possibility of information being distorted).
Well over half of countries surveyed (57%) have an official document promoting citizen participation in policy
making; the vast majority of centres (81%) are also directly involved in open government initiatives. However,
while most have institutionalised the open government principles of transparency and accountability, the
participation part of the equation appears less well developed.
Areas for attention
Throughout the report there are suggestions for where the centre could focus some attention to enhance
policy processes or overall governance. They may form the basis for future OECD discussions of senior officials
from centres of government, and will be areas to test in any future OECD survey of the roles and functions of
centres of government. They include:
•• As part of its role in whole-of-government strategy, strategic planning and policy performance
assurance, how the centre could enhance the institutional infrastructure for building future con-
siderations into policy (policy frameworks, methodological tools and institutional capabilities)
and how it might assume a longer-term stewardship role while at the same time respecting the
strategic direction of elected governments.
•• How to develop policy capability at the centre, including to manage growing pressure to lead
cross-cutting or cross-ministerial initiatives, and how to facilitate and encourage improvements
in policy capability (skills, methods, evidence base) generally across the whole of government.
•• How to develop a more collaborative style of leadership, one that is less about command and
control and monitoring performance, and more about providing active facilitation, support and
advice to line ministries in order to collectively meet complex, cross-cutting and often intransi-
gent policy challenges. This would include mechanisms to bring ministries together in the pur-
suit of common goals or outcomes, and performance management methods for incentivising,
acknowledging and rewarding contributions to collective goals.
•• How to build the participatory part of open government to improve policy quality and effec-
tiveness. This would involve developing deliberate approaches to public participation, under-
standing and building capability in methodologies for incorporating user insights into policy,
and shared understanding of when and for what types of policy public participation is most
appropriate.
10WHAT IS THE CENTRE OF GOVERNMENT?
Despite differences between countries in terms of constitutional forms and administrative traditions, there are
strong similarities in the role and functions of organisations at the centre of government.
The vast majority (84%), of countries in this survey agree that their centre of government corresponds to the
OECD definition, that is: “the administrative structure that serves the executive (president or prime minister,
and the cabinet collectively)”. The centre therefore includes entities referred to in various countries as: the Chan-
cellery, Cabinet Office, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Privy Council Office, Office of the Presi-
dent, Executive Office, Casa Civil, Presidencia, etc.
The centre is closely linked to the executive branch, providing support to ensure elected politicians make deci-
sions that are informed by evidence and expert analysis. The success of any government programme depends
on the ability of the centre to oversee the quality of the policy process from policy analysis and development to
monitoring and evaluation of outcomes. It acts as a political-administrative bridge, facilitates co-ordination and
coherence across government agencies and resolves conflicts and crises when they threaten to derail policies
and programmes. The centre typically operates across government, acting as the eyes and ears of the head of
government, including by maintaining relationships and relevant networks.
In some countries, a number of functions of the centre as defined by OECD are carried out by two or more enti-
ties; in others, the centre is defined as including bodies such as the ministry of finance. In many cases there is a
separation between the staff providing political and strategic advice to the head of government - often referred
to as the prime minister’s or president’s ‘private office’ - and staff who provide apolitical policy advice. The centre
tends to be more complex in systems where there is both a prime minister and a president.
In several countries, the centre also includes units, sometimes with significant staff, whose functions lie outside
the OECD definition, notably intelligence, counter espionage, and other national security-related functions.
WHAT THE CENTRE OF GOVERNMENT DOES – KEY ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Figure 1. Key responsibilities of the centre of government
Co-ordinating preparation of Cabinet meetings While the range of responsibili-
Policy co-ordination across government ties carried out by centres of gov-
Strategic planning for the whole of government ernment varies across countries,
Communicating govt messages to the public some functions are common to
Monitoring the implementation of gov policy most, in particular co-ordinating
Preparation of the government programme the preparation of cabinet meet-
Relations with Parliament / Legislature
ings and policy co-ordination
Designing & implementing reform of public admin
across government. The cen-
tre takes almost exclusive re-
International co-ordination / international policy
sponsibility for those functions.
HR strategy for the public admin as a whole
Whole-of-government strategic
Risk mgmt/strategic foresight for whole of govt
planning and monitoring the
Regulatory policy
implementation of government
Policy formulation policy are also high on the agen-
Relations with sub-national levels of government da (see Figure 1).
Transition plan b/w outgoing & incoming govt
Policy analysis
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Source: Survey on the Organisation and Functions of the Centre of Government, OECD (2017).
Centre Stage, OECD Centres of Government - © OECD 2018 11Other key responsibilities (such as risk management and strategic foresight, communicating messages to the public
and across the administration, and regulatory policy) are often shared between the centre and other ministries or
government bodies (Figure 2). International co-ordination and international policy issues similarly are shared, with
foreign ministries taking the lead. The same shared approach is often taken for designing and implementing public
administration reform programmes and managing whole of government human resources strategies, where pri-
mary responsibility typically sits with ministries of finance, interior or public administration. However, where public
management reform is a high priority on a government’s agenda, the centre is likely to be more involved, including
in related strategic human resources reforms. A number of countries reported taking the lead in state sector reform
programmes.
The 2017 survey results mirrored those of the previous survey, showing a strong commonality of core functions
across centres of government and relative consensus on which were most important. Communicating government
messages to the public and across the administration seems to have become slightly more of a priority relative to
the 2013 results, although like other differences in results between the two surveys, this could be a reflection of the
countries included in the survey rather than a trend.
Figure 2. The centre of government’s share of key responsibilities
Centre of government Another body Shared
Int’l co-ordination / int’l policy issues
Policy analysis
Policy formulation
HR strategy for the public administration
Relations with sub-national levels of government
Reform of the public administration
Regulatory policy
Communicating govt messages to the public
Risk anticipation & mgmt/strategic foresight
Relations with Parliament / Legislature
Preparation of the government programme
Strategic planning for the whole of government
Monitoring the implementation of government policy
Transition planning and management
Policy co-ordination across government
Co-ordinating preparation of Cabinet meetings
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Source: Survey on the Organisation and Functions of the Centre of Government, OECD (2017).
LEADERSHIP AND STAFFING AT THE CENTRE OF GOVERNMENT
Leadership of organisations at the centre of government requires individuals that can be trusted advisors and sup-
porters of elected political leaders, while also being able to gain the requisite respect and ‘followership’ of lead-
ers and organisations in the permanent civil service. Like in other sectors, modern leadership requires collabora-
tion, networking and influencing skills rather than a traditional top-down, command and control approach (OECD,
2017e). Whether the head of the centre of government is a political appointee or a career civil servant the leadership
role is a complex one.
There is an almost even split between countries in how the heads of centres are appointed: 51% are political ap-
pointees while 49% are career civil servants (Table 1). This is almost identical to 2013 results (52% political, 48% civil
servant) despite the slightly different survey group.
There are advantages and disadvantages to both approaches. A political appointee provides a close link to politi-
cians and, in theory, increases the centre’s ability to influence the political and policy agenda, especially where the
head of the centre is also a ministerial post, which it is in just over a third (35%) countries in the survey. Political ap-
pointees are replaced when the government changes (unless they have some fixed-term contractual arrangement,
which is not typical). Having a politically appointed leader implies a significant effort during a change of govern-
ment: in just over half (51%) of countries surveyed, the head of the CoG steps down when there is a change in gov-
ernment. On the other hand, in three-quarters of countries in the survey less than a quarter of senior management
in the CoG also changes with a change in government. This suggests that if the head goes, there is still significant
senior management capability to keep the organisation and wider public administration running. In only 5 countries
does more than half of the senior management change (Brazil, Chile, Greece, Hungary, Mexico).
12Table 1. Status of head of centre of government, by country
Civil Servant Political Appointee
Australia Brazil
Austria Chile
Belgium
Canada Costa Rica
Denmark
Estonia
France Czech Republic
Finland
Iceland Germany
Ireland Greece
Latvia Hungary
Luxembourg Israel
Malaysia Japan
Morocco Lithuania
Netherlands Mexico
Portugal
New Zealand Slovak Republic
Norway Slovenia
Spain
Turkey Sweden
Switzerland
United Kingdom USA
Source: Survey on the Organisation and Functions of the Centre of Government, OECD (2017).
Career civil servants are likely to have a superior knowledge of legislative and policy processes and can provide in-
stitutional knowledge and administrative continuity across time and governments. They are also likely to be able to
navigate across the administration, including through valuable networks of civil service colleagues. Implementation
of policy and programmes might be enhanced by this.
The leadership profile of the head of the centre of government appears to have an impact on the principal chan-
nels through which policy issues are discussed. Political appointees are less likely to discuss policy issues through a
group of senior advisors than are career civil servants.
While governments are unlikely to change their approach to appointing leaders on the basis of what others do, it
is worth considering how to learn from the benefits of alternative systems; in systems where leaders are political
appointees, to have strategies for engaging with the civil service; and for systems where leaders are career civil serv-
ants, how to successfully engage in the political domain (while maintaining political neutrality).
Similar considerations and trade-offs are required for overall staffing of offices at the centre of government. The vast
majority (92%) of staff working in the centre of government are career civil servants (Figure 3). In only 3 countries -
Greece, Chile and Mexico - are a majority of staff political appointments (although as Mexico pointed out, this does
not preclude them from having previous experience in the civil service).
Figure 3. Centre of government staff: civil servants and political appointees
Responses to the question: Are the professional staff of the CoG primary civil servants or political appointees?
92% Civil servants 8% Political appointees
Source: Survey on the Organisation and Functions of the Centre of Government, OECD (2017).
Centre Stage, OECD Centres of Government - © OECD 2018 13Staffing offices at the centre requires a balance between ensuring continuity of institutional knowledge –
especially with constitutional and procedural conventions – and temporary or rolling expertise in policy ar-
eas that are current government priorities. Around two-thirds (62%) of countries surveyed have some staff
seconded to the centre from line ministries. In 5 countries most staff are seconded (Brazil, Germany, Japan,
Morocco, Spain). Secondments from ministries provide an opportunity to bring deep subject matter expertise
into the centre. They can also help to strengthen relationships with line ministries and thereby enhance the
co-ordination capacity of the centre of government. Denmark explained the staffing strategy for its Prime
Minister’s Office (Box 1).
Box 1. Denmark’s centre of government staffing strategy
Most of the professional staff in the PMO is temporarily employed, typically on 2-3 year contracts.
After their term in the PMO they normally continue their career in their native ministry. This recruit-
ment strategy was established in the mid 1990’s. It was introduced to ensure a continuously dynam-
ic and changing team of staff which possesses relevant expertise and analytical skills in different
policy areas. In addition, having experts in the PMO with strong ties to the ministries and a thor-
ough understanding of their areas enhances the centre of government co-ordination processes.
Figure 4. Proportion of centre of government staff seconded (detached) from other ministries
3% Other
13% Yes, most, all
35% No, (are CoG employees)
49%, Yes, a small number
Source: Survey on the Organisation and Functions of the Centre of Government, OECD (2017).
SIZE AND STRUCTURE – THE ONLY CONSTANT IS CHANGE
Organisations defined as the ‘centre of government’ for this survey vary in size from under 100 staff (7 coun-
tries fall into this category) to several thousands of staff. Regardless of the starting point, in most countries the
centre of government increased in both size and budget since 2013 (see Figure 5), and many also changed
configuration, usually as a result of taking on additional functions. The survey revealed that:
•• Staff numbers increased in two-thirds (67%) of countries.
•• Budgets also increased in two-thirds (67%) of countries. Only around one in five centres had no
change in their budgets (19%) while only 14% experienced a budget decrease.
14Figure 5. Changes in size of centres of government
Staff numbers, 2012 - 2016
8% decreased
25% no change
67% increased
Source: Survey on the Organisation and Functions of the Centre of Government, OECD (2017).
Changes in size reflect new responsibilities for the centre. For example, in Australia, the Department of Prime Minis-
ter and Cabinet took on a number of new policy areas (indigenous policy, women’s policy, national policy on cities,
deregulation, digital and data policy, and population policy). The German Federal Chancellery added tasks such as
co-ordination of the refugee situation, integration policy, better co-ordination of Federal intelligence services, and
G7/G20 leadership. Ireland took on more staff to handle the EU Presidency in 2013 while recent budget increases are
to fund two independent commissions of investigation. Significant staff increases in the Department of the Prime
Minister and Cabinet in New Zealand reflect responsibilities for civil defence and emergency management and co-
ordinating the recovery effort following a series of damaging earthquakes.
Government restructuring led to an increase in size and/or budget for the centre in some countries. In Brazil, the
Secretariat for Economic and Social Development was moved to the Office of the Chief of Staff for the Presidency.
Hungary upgraded the Prime Minister’s Office from a State Secretariat to a Ministry, with an increase in functions
including public administration development, cultural heritage, and rural development. Budget decreases in other
countries reflect government-wide cost-cutting measures (the Deficit Reduction Action Plan in Canada, austerity
measures for fiscal sustainability in Slovenia) or reorganisation of existing functions (Sweden).
The configuration of the centre of government is fluid and evolves over time. Only a third of countries reported ‘sta-
bility’ in the types of units housed at the centre; two-thirds (67%) reported change. The 2013 centre of government
survey reported a similar change story. Changes reflect new priorities of incoming governments, or are responses
to emerging challenges. Examples of new units created since 2013 include the Results and Delivery Unit (Canada),
a Directorate for Crisis Communication, and a State Data Banks Commissioner (Luxembourg), a National Council for
Children (Chile), and a Government Strategy Secretariat (Finland).
Sometimes special units established at the centre have a limited lifespan, reflecting the changing priorities of the
government of the day. The centre is often perceived as a safe space to incubate a function that, once sufficiently
mature, can be later transferred to another department.
While there is no ideal configuration of organisations at the centre, centres of government would do well to have
some framework to guide machinery of government decisions about adding or dropping functions. Such decisions
would of course include relatively uncontrollable considerations such as “is it a priority or special interest of the
head of government?” and assessments of whether the area would be best placed elsewhere in the administra-
tion (requiring assessments of capability outside the centre). Discussions at OECD meetings of Senior Officials from
Centres of Government suggest general consensus that organisations at the centre of government perform best
when they are nimble and strategic rather than bogged down in substantive policy and programme responsibili-
ties. Some periodic evaluation of functions, to test whether they need to be at the centre, and a subsequent ‘spring
clean’ would be a valuable exercise.
Centre Stage, OECD Centres of Government - © OECD 2018 15ENSURING HIGH-QUALITY DECISION MAKING
Despite the variety of constitutional models across the OECD and the related differences in how decisions
are taken – from highly collegial consensus-based systems such as the Netherlands and Sweden to more top-
down presidential systems such as Chile and the US – the centre of government in all countries takes the lead
in ensuring support for decision-making processes. This involves relatively administrative but vital tasks, such
as cabinet meeting and agenda organisation, to assuring the quality of the evidence and advice presented
to decision makers. The centre’s role is to ensure that decision makers are able to debate the merits of policy
options based on evidence-informed policy advice presented in a way that helps them understand the costs,
benefits, likely impacts and overall implications of those options. That means co-ordinating the process by
which advice gets to decision makers and the organisations that generate it.
SUPPORTING CABINET AND CABINET PROCEDURES
In most OECD countries more or less regular cabinet meetings are the principal forum for policy delibera-
tion and decision making (Figure 6). In presidential systems, bilateral meetings with key ministers or advisors
tend to be more common. Most systems also involve committees of ministers, state secretaries and advisors
to prepare and transmit advice to cabinet or the head of government. The centre plays an important role in
preparing these meetings to verify the quality of advice and supporting information, help resolve disputes
and ensure that any required procedures (for example consultation, regulatory impact analysis, articulation of
financial and legal implications) are followed.
Figure 6. Main institutional instruments used by the centre to ensure policy co-ordination
Regular Cabinet meetings
Task forces
Ad hoc meetings of senior officials
Ad hoc Cabinet discussions
Written guidance
Performance Management
Other
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
Source: Survey on the Organisation and Functions of the Centre of Government, OECD (2017).
Centres of government play an active role in supporting cabinet, cabinet committees and the cabinet deci-
sion-making process (Box 2). The centre of government takes responsibility for co-ordinating discussion of
agenda items prior to discussion by cabinet in most countries, mainly through briefings (59%) or ministerial
committees (41%). Only 3 countries – Costa Rica, Norway, Portugal, – said they did not play this role. Where
the leadership of the centre are career civil servants they tend to provide more administrative and secretarial
support to cabinet meetings; political appointees are more likely to be directly involved in discussions.
16Box 2. Centre of government support to cabinet
Canada
PCO supports the decision-making process in both secretariat and policy capacities. It arranges
Cabinet Committee meetings, circulates agendas, and provides advice to Cabinet Committee
Chairs on agenda items. It supports, via the Clerk of the Privy Council as Chair, several Deputy
Minister Committees and task forces with policy co-ordination responsibilities. The Coordinat-
ing Committee of Deputy Ministers provides a forum for discussion of Government policy and
priorities and ensures co-ordination across the deputy minister committees. PCO supports Cabi-
net committees including by: convening inter-departmental meetings and ensuring the depart-
ments meet submission deadlines.
The survey confirmed that the centre is also highly involved in organising cross-government policy co-ordi-
nation group and committees, including groups of ministers (Figure 7). More than three-quarters (78%) of
respondents reported organising meetings of ministers, confirming the centre’s close proximity to and in-
volvement with the wider executive, regardless of whether the centre is led by career civil servants or political
appointees.
Figure 7. Centre responsibility for organising cross-government policy co-ordination groups or committees, and
level of committee
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Yes, Minister Yes, State Secretary Yes, Director Yes, Other No
Source: Survey on the Organisation and Functions of the Centre of Government, OECD (2017).
REVIEW AND QUALITY CONTROL OF ITEMS FOR CABINET
In the vast majority of countries (91%) the centre of government is responsible for reviewing items submitted
to cabinet. Only 3 countries – Chile, Portugal and Spain – reported not having this role. This review role in-
volves assessing whether proper processes and procedures as well as presentational requirements have been
followed, ensuring that the item is aligned with the overall government programme, that the item conforms
to legal, regulatory, and financial criteria, and that adequate consultation has occurred (although comments
suggested that this refers mainly to consultation within government not with wider stakeholders or the pub-
lic) (Table 2). If procedures for preparation have not been respected, the centre has the authority to return
proposals to the generating ministry or department; more than two-thirds (68%) of countries reported having
this check and reject role.
Centre Stage, OECD Centres of Government - © OECD 2018 17In terms of legal, regulatory and fiscal conformity, the centre shares this audit role with other bodies. Testing
fiscal implications is typically the responsibility of ministries of finance; only about a third of respondents
(35%) reported reviewing the costing of items submitted to cabinet. Overall responsibility for regulatory qual-
ity and consistency is a shared in more than half (57%) of countries surveyed, usually with ministries of jus-
tice, economy or finance. However, differences in results from the 2013 survey in terms of reviewing items to
cabinet, could suggest a more active regulatory quality review role for the centre (51% compared with 42%
in 2013, and significantly fewer countries saying that aspect was reviewed by another body, 45% compared
to 12%). This may be a result of more upstream activity, including the development of guidelines for quality
regulation and requirements for regulatory impact statements to accompany proposals to cabinet, so that the
role of the centre is more to check that procedures have been followed rather than test the quality of regula-
tory analysis itself.
Table 2. How are items submitted to cabinet reviewed by the centre?
Mentioned by % of respond- CoG reviews CoG has authority to return This is reviewed by another
ents items to Ministry for addi- body
tional work if criterion is not
satisfied
That procedures for prepara- 65% (63%) 68% (75%) 11% (4%)
tion and presentation are
respected
That the item is in line with 57% (57%) 38% (63%) 8% (17%)
the Government Programme
That item has been subject 43% (52%) 51% (65%) 8% (19%)
to an adequate consultation
process
Quality of legal drafting and 38% (40%) 57% (53%) 32% (19%)
legal conformity
That a regulation meets regu- 51% (41%) 49% (62%) 32% (45%)
latory quality standards
That adequate costing has 35% (40%) 38% (50%) 57% (63%)
been carried out
Note: 2013 results in brackets
Source: Survey on the Organisation and Functions of the Centre of Government, OECD (2017).
There were some differences between the 2017 and 2013 results in terms of the centre’s authority to return
items to the generating ministry if requirements have not been met. On all criteria, apart from legal conform-
ity, the centre’s authority to reject items appears to have dropped. This will be something to watch in future
enquiries.
Testing items to cabinet for conformity to presentational, legal, regulatory and fiscal standards necessitates
that those standards and procedures are well codified and communicated to ministries and departments pre-
paring cabinet submissions. The vast majority of centres of government (86%) reported providing guidance
and or training on how to meet the standards required on the above criteria. In Westminster countries the
Cabinet Manual and related directives sets out processes and procedures. In other countries guidelines are
prepared by the centre based on constitutional requirements for decision-making (e.g Sweden).
The provision of accessible and easy-to-follow guidelines is likely to optimise conformity with cabinet pro-
cesses as do administrative tools like templates. The Netherlands has recently introduced ‘fixed e-forms’ for
submissions to ministers. The Canadian Privy Council Office provides templates for how memoranda to cabi-
net should be prepared and submitted. The release of a new template is followed by courses offered by the
Canada School of Public Service which coordinates the course content with PCO. The centre in Norway also
noted training and guidance in this context. Only 4 countries (Costa Rica, Germany, Morocco and Spain) said
they did not provide guidance or training on criteria for submission of items to cabinet.
18GOING UPSTREAM – IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF POLICY ADVICE
As noted above, differences in results between the 2013 and 2017 surveys in terms of reviewing items to cabinet
for regulatory quality might be the result of more investment in policy advice upstream, such as requirements
to prepare robust regulatory impact statements to accompany policy proposals to ministers and cabinet. While
less than a third of countries claimed primary responsibility for regulatory quality (more than half shared that
responsibility with other bodies such as Finance or Justice) 4 countries (France, Iceland, Lithuania and the United
States) listed regulatory quality and consistency as among their 4 top priority responsibilities.
A few countries have gone beyond regulatory quality to take a broad whole-of-government approach to im-
proving the quality of policy advice generally, notably New Zealand through its Policy Project and the United
Kingdom through its Twelve Actions to professionalise policy making (UK Government, 2013). Both programmes
are discussed later in Box 9. New Zealand’s Policy Quality Framework (DPMC, 2017) codifies the characteristics
of quality policy advice as well as the ‘enablers’ of great advice, like considering multiple perspectives, good
commissioning and quality assurance processes. It provides a range of ex-ante and ex-post tools (such as quality
control and peer review templates) to support policy advisors to deliver high-quality advice to ministers (Policy
Project). Departments are required to report policy quality scores annually and encouraged to set policy quality
improvement targets.
Well-informed discussion and effective decisions taken by the head of government and cabinet depends on the
quality of advice tendered to ministers as well as the co-ordination of processes and organisations that gener-
ate it. The centre plays a key brokerage and facilitation role, bringing other player together to ensure policy
co-ordination.
BRINGING SENIOR OFFICIALS TOGETHER FOR POLICY CO-ORDINATION
While regular cabinet meetings were considered the main institutional instrument used by the centre for ensur-
ing policy co-ordination, the survey confirmed that ad hoc meetings of senior officials are also an important
institutional venue for co-ordination and for working through differences or conflicts in substance or territory
before items get to cabinet.
The vast majority of respondents (81%) said they were responsible for organising pre-cabinet meetings of sen-
ior officials, either always (35%) or sometimes (46%). Only 7 countries said they did not – Brazil, Japan, Morocco,
Norway, Slovenia, Spain and Ireland (although the Irish Department of the Taoiseach convenes weekly meetings
of officials to discuss the government’s overall agenda).
Other centres also reported convening more or less regular meetings of senior officials, not directly linked to
the cabinet agenda, both with leaders at permanent secretary level and other senior policy managers. Estonia
and Latvia reported convening weekly meetings of state secretaries, although Latvia suggests that there is still
potential for these or similar meetings to be used for more content-oriented discussion on progress with policy
implementation, new policy initiatives and foresight exercises. Iceland reported regular meetings of permanent
secretaries.
These sessions offer an opportunity for senior civil service leaders to develop a shared understanding of the
overall government programme and direction of travel. They offer the centre the opportunity to communicate
the flavour of the head of government’s and council of ministers’ thinking and where they could anticipate fu-
ture demands for policy advice. It is also an opportunity for what amounts to the senior leadership team of the
government administration to be proactive in developing and co-ordinating a more strategic policy agenda.
In Finland, for example, the agendas of the formal cabinet meetings are not discussed between the centre of
government and ministries; however, “new bi-monthly strategy sessions and their agendas are prepared by
the Government Strategy Secretariat of the centre of government. The agendas are designed in co-operation
between the Strategy Secretariat and the political cabinet of the Prime Minister.” The personal relationships
and networking opportunities provided by regular meetings of senior leaders help to build links between their
departments and their sectoral policy responsibilities.
Centre Stage, OECD Centres of Government - © OECD 2018 19INFLUENCING AND INCENTIVISING POLICY CO-ORDINATION
The ability to bring substantive departments and their interests together is crucial for ensuring that decision
makers receive coherent and co-ordinated policy advice. The authority of the centre derives from its proximity
to and support of the head of government; its ability to lead will be strongest where it is able to show that the
policy concerned is a priority of the head of government.
It may come as a surprise to line ministries that around three-quarters (73%) of centre of government officials
consider that they only exert ‘moderate’ influence over other ministries. Only around a quarter (27%) felt they
had ‘high’ influence (down from over a third, 34% in 2013). The ‘proximity to power’ authority of the centre
therefore is important - but may not be sufficient - especially where substantive departments are facing pres-
sure from the sectoral interests of their individual ministers.
The centre needs to have superior relationship management and networking skills to be able to work through
both formal and informal channels, through collective bodies as well as bilaterally with individual leaders and
departments (and actors outside government), and to co-ordinate and sometimes mediate simultaneously
between ministers and senior officials. In many countries, including France, Germany, and Westminster sys-
tems, there is an expectation that conflicts should be resolved at the level of ministerial committee or below,
and that differences of opinion should be reported and noted rather than having to be arbitrated by the head
of government.
While influence and relationship management skills are crucial, the centre also increasingly employs a toolkit
of mechanisms – incentives and levers, both formal and informal – to have influence over the policy system as
a whole. Some are making use of performance and other targets.
MANDATES AND TARGETS
Countries were asked what incentives exist to promote policy co-ordination across ministries (Figure 8).
Around 40% cited individual or collective performance targets (albeit down from just over half in 2013). Some
of these derive from ministerial mandates handed down from the head of government. A number of countries
reported involvement in supporting heads of government to prepare and communicate specific mandates
to signal priorities to ministers and their departments. The Canadian PCO, for example, supports the prime
minister in the writing of mandate letters to each cabinet minister responsible for a departmental portfolio. In
France, each directeur d’adminstration centrale receives a mandate letter with objectives to be met.
Figure 8. Incentives to promote co-ordination across ministries and agencies
18
16
18
14
12
14
10
8
6
7
4 5
2
0
Individual or collective None Financial Other
performance
targets/ evaluation
Source: Survey on the Organisation and Functions of the Centre of Government, OECD (2017).
20Policy or outcome goals and targets typically form part of the whole-of-government strategic planning process.
Performance management of strategic goals and policy priorities is discussed later. However, recent research
points to the relative effectiveness of collective responsibilities over individual accountability for achieving policy
outcomes, especially where achieving those outcomes requires the involvement of a range of line departments.
In this scenario, organisations at the centre are likely to be more effective as a broker and facilitator than a task
master or after-the-fact auditor.
FINANCIAL INCENTIVES
Only 7 countries reported offering financial incentives to drive policy co-ordination (Brazil, Estonia, Finland, France,
Israel, NZ, USA) although in most cases this seemed to reflect funding available for cross-cutting projects. Estonia
reported finances available and managed by the centre for task forces and analyses of cross-cutting issues, while
Finland noted significant funding (1 billion euros) targeted at five priority areas and 26 related key projects. France
reported financial penalties related to targets for gender equality not being met. More than a third of countries
(38%) reported no formal incentives for policy co-ordination.
POLICY CO-ORDINATION ACROSS BRANCHES AND LEVELS
OF GOVERNMENT
Policy co-ordination also involves relationships with actors other than departments and their ministers including
legislatures, sub-national governments, and supra-national policy for a (where national governments strive to be
more policy maker than policy taker).
RELATIONS WITH PARLIAMENT/LEGISLATURES
Most survey respondents stressed that each line ministry and its minister has responsibility for regulation/legisla-
tion in its own substantive portfolio area, and therefore assumes responsibility for managing relationships with
and the passage of legislation through parliament. The centre tends to play more of an overview role, including
through oversight of the legislative programme. This is more than just an administrative task. Processes and sched-
ules for translating government policy into timely legislation can be complex and challenging. Systems where
there are unstable or complex coalitions make this more of a challenge, for which the head of government and
ministers need co-ordination and logistical support.
Maintaining good relations between the executive and the legislature therefore is an important function of the
centre, albeit one shared with other bodies: 41% of centres claimed primary responsibility for relations with par-
liament while 54% shared the function with other bodies (line ministries). Moreover, almost a quarter (23%) of
respondents said this function was one of the centre’s top 4 responsibilities (Chile, Costa Rica, Iceland, Ireland,
Luxembourg, Portugal, Slovenia, USA).
RELATIONS WITH SUB-NATIONAL GOVERNMENTS
Not surprisingly, managing relations with constituent governments to co-ordinate policy is more a priority for the
centre in federal states. More than half of respondents (51%) said they had no co-ordinating role across levels of
government. Only Australia and Hungary cited this as one of their top 4 functions.
Australia explained its administrative infrastructure set up to fulfil this role:
“[The Department of the Prime Minister & Cabinet] PM&C leads the government’s relations with sub-national levels of govern-
ment through its support for the Council of Australian Governments (COAG). COAG is chaired by the Prime Minister and includes
the first ministers of each Australian State and Territory and the head of the Australian Local Government Association. The COAG
system includes ministerial councils that facilitate consultation and co-operation among the levels of government. Other de-
partments and agencies may also engage with Australian States and Territories on specific issues.”
Centre Stage, OECD Centres of Government - © OECD 2018 21RELATIONS WITH INTERNATIONAL GOVERNMENTS AND POLICY FORA
Very few centres of government claimed primary responsibility for international policy co-ordination, which
is usually the domain of foreign ministries. However, 41% of respondents said they did play a role co-ordi-
nating their country’s position in some international bodies and discussions, and just under a third (31%) are
involved in monitoring their country’s international commitments. Heads of governments are often heavily
involved in direct bilateral or multi-lateral international meetings for which they require specific support,
typically a separate advisory function within the centre, albeit with close ties to foreign ministry counterparts.
Coherence and co-ordination of international connections is vital, especially as line ministries increasingly
have direct relationships with counterparts working in substantive policy areas in other jurisdictions. It is
important that the international policy domains of line ministries do not clash, and that the government
speaks with a coherent voice on the international stage. Being an effective policy maker depends on being
able to co-ordinate activities and policy goals at home in order to speak with one authoritative voice on the
international stage.
The centre is more likely to play a direct role in monitoring international commitments that cut across gov-
ernment, such as the implementation of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (discussed later).
WHOLE-OF-GOVERNMENT VISION, STRATEGY & PRIORITY-SETTING
Governments are elected on the basis of a programme that reflects a strategic vision for the future of their
economies and societies. In office, they face a range of pressures to focus on the urgent and immediate, not
least of which is the relatively short-term nature of election cycles. Most, if not all, governments also face a
plethora of real or perceived crises, and concomitant demands to be seen to respond or react to every news
event. The realities of managing domestic and international challenges tend to crowd out the pursuit of
longer-term goals and the realisation of that initial strategic vision.
The centre of government is uniquely placed to act as the guardian of the government’s vision by translating
election manifestos into a whole-of-government strategy that informs policy priorities and the work pro-
grammes of ministries and departments. It can promote consistent policies and strategic alignment, includ-
ing by assessing the extent to which policy proposals generated by individual ministers and their ministries
fit into the broader policy context, verifying the overall strategic “fit” of policies and programmes.
Increasingly, centres are recognising that to anticipate and respond to looming and future issues like climate
change, aging populations and the changing nature of work, they need to move beyond just translating
government manifestos into a strategic work programme; they also need to take on a longer-term public
good stewardship role. This might mean providing proactive advice to heads of government and ministers
on protecting the long-term public interest, including setting longer-term social, economic and environmen-
tal goals or at least taking steps to minimise harm to future generations. Forward-thinking governments will
enable and support this.
The survey revealed that few governments are taking a systematic approach to embedding a long-term
stewardship focus into institutional arrangements and policy frameworks.
STRATEGIC VISION – SETTING THE AGENDA
More than three-quarters (78%) of survey respondents reported the existence of a document outlining a
strategic vision for their country. However, for more than a third of countries (35%) this document only covers
a period of 5 years or less, the likely period of an electoral cycle. Indeed, a number of respondents referred
to the ruling party’s manifesto as their strategic vision document. The concept of ‘vision’ is therefore often
synonymous with a political strategy rather than a long-term future vision. However, there appears to be
some improvement in this since 2013, where almost two-thirds (63%) of countries fell into that short-term
category. Results for 2017 also show more countries having a whole-of-government strategy that covers
11-20 years (27% compared with 17% in 2013). Only 3 countries, Japan, Luxembourg and Norway reported
having a document with a more than 20-year horizon (Table 3).
22You can also read
